Originally posted by TalloneI can do better than edited videos. I can give you some history available to be checked via your Internet
connection at a site of your own choice. There are so many sources of verification.

So many credible sources that you cant provide a single one?

Your entire post was comprised of your opinions with no supporting documentation at all. None whatsoever…

Ron Paul is an “isolationist” because he does not believe in endless wars and does not believe in the New World Order agenda of a One World
Government under the UN? This is the first time I’ve seen someone state that wanting to end a policy of continuous warfare and valuing sovereignty
is “isolationist”…

The Kirchick investigation into the Ron Paul letters is available on The New Republic site. www.tnr.com...

Ron Paul denies writing the Newsletters himself but as Kirchick himself has noted Ron Paul pulls in almost a million dollars in checks from supporters
sent his Newsletters, filled with racist and homophobic vitriol, and he didn't know who wrote them or even check the content? BTW the Newsletters
list among the 11 writers four members of Paul's own family and Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul's own guru.
This is not my opinion either.

Your first link produced search results to a definition? None of which (as far as I could tell) mentioned Ron Paul.

Your second link produced an article by David Boaz in which he cites an article by James Kirchick in which he says that he cannot prove that Ron Paul
wrote any of the claims which you eluded to earlier (at-least he's being honest):

Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters
are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters
were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

Your third link has references to a Ron Paul newsletter which the previous author admits were not written by Ron Paul. Furthermore, NONE of
the links on that page work...

And finally, your last link has an article titled "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters" which again states that Ron Paul did not write the newsletter:

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. But a source close to the Paul
presidential campaign told reason that Rockwell authored much of the content of the Political Report and Survival Report. Rockwell was publicly named
as Paul's ghostwriter as far back as a 1988 issue of the now-defunct movement monthly American Libertarian.

So all of your opinions are based on a newsletter which Ron Paul did not write and which cannot be sourced...

Ron Paul replied he didn't write them.
But Ron Paul pulls in over $900,000.00 from those Newsletter recipients. Yes the letters are filled with racist and homophobic vitriol, and he says
didn't know who wrote them or even check the content?

I mean here was a presidential candidate who states for over 9 years he has had no idea what was in his own newsletters and who wrote them. He
accepted over $900.000.00 from people receiving the newsletters. Presidents have to know a little bit about their support team. Don't you think so?
'

'

However, the Newsletters list among the 11 writers four members of Paul's own family and Lew Rockwell who is Ron Paul's own guru.

Anyway the result of the verification from one particular source…

The Cato Institute reviewed the evidence and announced they would henceforth distance themselves from Ron Paul.

I will post some excerpts, again with the URL.

Not enough evidence for you yet?
Still want to watch the 'sympathy and by the way vote for Ron Paul' video campaign?

Before you fall for the line Ron Paul is a libertarian consider what the godfather institution of libertarianism has to say about Ron Paul.

Excerpts from the Cato Institute after an investigation of the very ugly Ron Paul newsletters.

"For the past few months most libertarians have been pleased to see Ron Paul achieving unexpected success with his presidential campaign’s message
of ending the Iraq war, abolishing the federal income tax, establishing sound money, and restoring the Constitution…"

"And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a
lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know [1]. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light,
and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would
have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold."

"Paul says he didn’t write the letters, that he denounces the words that appeared in them, that he was unaware for decades of what 100,000 people
were receiving every month from him. That’s an odd claim on which to run for president: I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over
my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government."

"But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president,
and he never hoped to be... now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government."

"Mutterings about the past mistakes of the New Republic or the ideological agenda of author James Kirchick are beside the point… Even those who
vociferously defend Ron Paul and viciously denounce Kirchick, perhaps even those who wrote the words originally, are apparently unwilling to quote and
defend the actual words that appeared over Ron Paul’s signature."

Those words are not libertarian words...
Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of
John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and
Robert Nozick. Shame on them."
Article printed from Cato @ Liberty: www.cato-at-liberty.org...www.cato-at-liberty.org...

I think that is about enough evidence for one day. And yes do some research and find out about the news letters that helped earn Ron Paul & associates
over $900,000.000 annually from his subscribing supporters. All content over Paul's own signature and this has gone on for years. And the man says he
never knew the content nor who wrote them.

Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters
are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters
were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

"Mutterings about the past mistakes of the New Republic or the ideological agenda of author James Kirchick are beside the point...Even those who
vociferously defend Ron Paul and viciously denounce Kirchick, perhaps even those who wrote the words originally, are apparently unwilling to quote and
defend the actual words that appeared over Ron Paul’s signature… Those words are not libertarian words."

the states have had the power to do what they want, and the feds were never supposed to be able to overthrow their decision. but that's changed, we
need to get back to the states running the states. yeah, you think that if a state legalized heroin that it would be awful, but think of it this
way, you have 50 companies trying to get customers (citizens moving into their state) , legalizing heroin would probably run people out of the state,
so it would probably never be legalized.

You mean the sentence leading into the punch line, the final sentence which you choose to omit?

He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he
became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited
government.

Originally posted by TalloneYou mean the sentence leading into the punch line, the final sentence which you choose to omit?

No, I mean the article which you pasted in its entirety with the exception of the following:

He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he
became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America.

I'll spell it out for you. Here is your paste:

Originally posted by Tallone
"But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president,
and he never hoped to be... now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government."

and here is the original article

But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for
president, and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding
beyond his wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble
cause of liberty and limited government.

Originally posted by Tallone
The Cato Institute sure don't like to be associated with Ron Paul. Now why would the bastion of Liberalism say such very bad things about the man you
say want me to accept as a Liberal?

Ron Paul would not be classified as a Liberal in today's political terms. He is more of a Conservative and a Libertarian.

If the Republican Party wants to return to power — and especially if it genuinely wants to keep America "safe, free, and prosperous" — it
will engage rather than dismiss Rep. Paul's critique of U.S. foreign policy.

Originally posted by TalloneYou mean the sentence leading into the punch line, the final sentence which you choose to omit?

No, I mean the article which you pasted in its entirety with the exception of the following:

He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he
became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America.

I'll spell it out for you. Here is your paste:

Originally posted by Tallone
"But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president,
and he never hoped to be... now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government."

and here is the original article

But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for
president, and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding
beyond his wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble
cause of liberty and limited government.

Originally posted by Tallone
The Cato Institute sure don't like to be associated with Ron Paul. Now why would the bastion of Liberalism say such very bad things about the man you
say want me to accept as a Liberal?

Ron Paul would not be classified as a Liberal in today's political terms. He is more of a Conservative and a Libertarian.

Ahh now "he is more of a conservative…" is he? Well it doesn't really matter what political pose he adopts. The man is clearly a stooge for the
elite number one. Number 2 he is linked to ultra nationalist, racist, and homo-phobic entities. He is also not adverse to making considerable sums of
money from the activities of such entities to support his stooge campaign (to disinform, obfuscate, confuse).

You seem to be a little cross. You seem to forget it is you who make claims and you who fail to submit prima facie evidence. It is you who defend your
case for Ron Paul here.

I therefore submit the entire CATO INSTITUTE ARTICLE / NOTICE as reliable evidence the institution of Liberalism has publicly dissed senator Ron Paul
as having anything to do with Liberalism- for what it (Liberalism with a capital L) is worth.

For the record then. Here is the article in its entirety. I submit it as evidence for the jury to consider.

Ron Paul’s Ugly Newsletters
Posted By David Boaz On January 11, 2008 @ 11:51 am In Government and Politics,Political Philosophy | Comments Disabled

For the past few months most libertarians have been pleased to see Ron Paul achieving unexpected success with his presidential campaign’s message of
ending the Iraq war, abolishing the federal income tax, establishing sound money, and restoring the Constitution. Sure, some of us didn’t like his
talk about closing the borders and his conspiratorial view of a North-South highway. But the main themes of his campaign, the ones that generated the
multi-million-dollar online fundraising spectaculars and the youthful “Ron Paul Revolution,” were classic libertarian issues. It was particularly
gratifying to see a presidential candidate tie the antiwar position to a belief in a strictly limited federal government.

And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack
of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know [1]. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I
for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have
tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.

Ron Paul says he didn’t write these newsletters, and I take him at his word. They don’t sound like him. In my infrequent personal encounters and
in his public appearances, I’ve never heard him say anything racist or homophobic (halting and uncomfortable on gay issues, like a lot of
72-year-old conservatives, but not hateful). But he selected the people who did write those things, and he put his name on the otherwise unsigned
newsletters, and he raised campaign funds from the mailing list that those newsletters created. And he would have us believe that things that “do
not represent what I believe or have ever believed” appeared in his newsletter for years and years without his knowledge. Assuming Ron Paul in fact
did not write those letters, people close to him did. His associates conceived, wrote, edited, and mailed those words. His closest associates over
many years know who created those publications. If they truly admire Ron Paul, if they think he is being unfairly tarnished with words he did not
write, they should come forward, take responsibility for their words, and explain how they kept Ron Paul in the dark for years about the words that
appeared every month in newsletters with “Ron Paul” in the title.

Paul says he didn’t write the letters, that he denounces the words that appeared in them, that he was unaware for decades of what 100,000 people
were receiving every month from him. That’s an odd claim on which to run for president: I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over
my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government.

But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president,
and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his
wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of
liberty and limited government.

Mutterings about the past mistakes of the New Republic or the ideological agenda of author James Kirchick are beside the point. Maybe Bob Woodward
didn’t like Quakers; the corruption he uncovered in the Nixon administration was still a fact, and that’s all that mattered. Ron Paul’s most
visible defenders have denounced Kirchick as a “pimply-faced youth”—so much for their previous enthusiasm about all the young people sleeping on
floors for the Paul campaign—and a neoconservative. But they have not denied the facts he reported. Those words appeared in newsletters under his
name. And, notably, they have not dared to defend or even quote the actual words that Kirchick reported. Even those who vociferously defend Ron Paul
and viciously denounce Kirchick, perhaps even those who wrote the words originally, are apparently unwilling to quote and defend the actual words that
appeared over Ron Paul’s signature.

Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect “paleoconservative” ideas, though they’re not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But
libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of
collectivism.” Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism.

Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of
John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and
Robert Nozick. Shame on them.

Originally posted by Tallone
The man is clearly a stooge for the elite number one.

How so? Please provide a source or some evidence for this new accusation (can't wait to see this one).

Originally posted by Tallone
Well it doesn't really matter what political pose he adopts.

It doesn't? Then why are you so concerned with trying to disassociate him from a Libertarian organization?

Originally posted by Tallone
Number 2 he is linked to ultra nationalist, racist, and homo-phobic entities.

Name one entity and please provide evidence or a reliable source (patiently waiting).

Originally posted by Tallone
You seem to forget it is you who make claims and you who fail to submit prima facie evidence.

Which claim and or claims did I make? Please let me know. Unlike some, I will be happy to substantiate everything I say.

Originally posted by Tallone
reliable evidence the institution of Liberalism has publicly dissed senator Ron Paul

The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. en.wikipedia.org...

I would ask if you know the difference between a Libertarian and a Liberal, but its clearly obvious that you do not yet you continue to comment on the
two...

You provide one article by David Boaz (in which you deleted the praise) whose source is another article by James Kirchick in which Kirchick himself
says that there is no way to know if Ron Paul wrote any of these alleged articles:

Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters
are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters
were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

Furthermore, the Cato Institute seems to repeatedly praise Ron Paul, contrary to your other claims. You seem to have conveniently ignored this so
I'll include it again:

If the Republican Party wants to return to power — and especially if it genuinely wants to keep America "safe, free, and prosperous" — it
will engage rather than dismiss Rep. Paul's critique of U.S. foreign policy.

I am a frequent visitor here at ATS but I seldom post.
However, after reading so much about Ron Paul, I couldn't stay quiet any longer.

Ron Paul is not only the last hope fpr the USA, he is also the last hope for politics and the markets worldwide.
Unfortunately, the US has a lot of influence in the world, most of it bad.
With Ron Paul in the White House, the American political system would be the beacon of light in the world of politics that it was always meant to be
.... Unless he is a liar offcourse.

If he is a liar and just another egotistical politician with self interest as his agenda, then you have lost nothing by voting for him because their
is simply no other voting alternative anyway.

When he speaks, he seems to use logic. Unfortunately, the use of logic is frowned upon and ridiculed by those that preport to be intelligent.

I'm in the Uk and I have refused to play the game. I have not voted in any election for many years because we have never had a politician or
political party worthy of my signature. However, If Ron Paul were a Brit.... I'd be marching the streets and screaming his name in the hope that he
is the genuine, loving and caring Human Being he portrays himself as....... We can only hope!

Originally posted by Silvertrowel
I am a frequent visitor here at ATS but I seldom post.
However, after reading so much about Ron Paul, I couldn't stay quiet any longer.

Ron Paul is not only the last hope fpr the USA, he is also the last hope for politics and the markets worldwide.
Unfortunately, the US has a lot of influence in the world, most of it bad.
With Ron Paul in the White House, the American political system would be the beacon of light in the world of politics that it was always meant to be
.... Unless he is a liar offcourse.

If he is a liar and just another egotistical politician with self interest as his agenda, then you have lost nothing by voting for him because their
is simply no other voting alternative anyway.

I'm in the Uk and I have refused to play the game. I have not voted in any election for many years because we have never had a politician or
political party worthy of my signature. However, If Ron Paul were a Brit.... I'd be marching the streets and screaming his name in the hope that he
is the genuine, loving and caring Human Being he portrays himself as....... We can only hope!

Brother, Ron Paul has been consistent in his view as reflected in his voting record for 30 years. There is no doubt that Ron Paul is 100% sincere.
No other main stream politician would dare challenge these corrupt institutions from the "Federal Reserve" to the Military Industrial Complex.

And you're right, US policy affects the World. Ron Paul is the only hope for America AND the World.

Originally posted by unityemissions
Back in 2007 I was fanatical about getting this man into office. After witnessing just how manipulated the election system is these days, I have no
doubt that this man will not get into that position.

Excuse me for seeming to be so cynical, but it seems this is the most reasonable assessment. It's violent revolution, or nothing much, really. It
seems most won't realize this until a good chunk of us are wiped out. How pathetic.

I've come to the same conclusion. It seems like only a revolution will unseat the rot that's taken hold in Washington. I won't hold my breath
though. Too many people are distracted by TV.

I grew up in the projects. I have built a suitable self empire of condos and houses with borrowed money that has been paid back in full. Ron Paul
wants you to have "Gold".

That was done............... it failed. Wall Street gathered it all and charged you gold that you did not have because again.............(Wall Street
had it all).

Since you are so smart I hope you will agree the dollar will NEVER crash because it can be valued 0, .100, .010 etc. You will be paid $100.00 hr and
milk would be $40.00 a gallon in those instances.

Anyway while you go buy gold, an Alex Jones tape, or whatever, I think I'll go buy another condo so I can charge you 2 oz a month rent if your hopes
come to fruition.

Well, I'm not quite sure what your point is in relation to the topic of this thread....but there was a time in America when we were on the gold
standard, meaning you could take a dollar bill to the bank at any time and trade it in for a dollar's worth of real gold. The price of gold stayed
the same so a dollar bill was always worth the same. The price of consumer goods did not fluctuate to any great degree and people could plan
intelligently for their futures because they knew how much money it would take to live in their future...because it was basically going to stay the
same. That was a time when the saying "Sound as a dollar" had a clear definable meaning to it that people saw reflected in their everyday lives.

I am new and was trying to respond to someone who plays know it all.

My point is if you have a total gold standard you cant "stretch" a dollar for all people to have an opportunity. I wont give away HOW I achieved my
personal success, but read Rich Dad, Poor Dad. The fundamentals are the same.

If you did not save when the gettin was good then you have to do that BEFORE you would employ tactics in that book.

If we go to a gold standard China will eat us for lunch.

There IS massive corruption and fiscal mismangement. That must be fixed, but to believe that some fat punk from Texas (who would have never made it
two blocks where I grew up) who tells you to hate your own government and have an attitude everytime you see someone in uniform is not the answer
either.

He is getting alot of young kids to hate the government. (WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT) No self respecting Presidential Candidate would go anywhere near that
clown and Ron Paul is on his show once a month.

comments....

It's all well and good to "stretch" the dollar as you say, but what about people who save money? Due to inflation, any savings you have ends up
reduced in value over the years. What good is it to have $5000.00 in the bank if, in 20 years, it'll have an adjusted value of $2500.00 (due to
inflation)?

Thanks for posting these. Every time I listen to him speak, I'm more convinced he is the right man for the job. The useless chair warmers and leeches
in the government [which is a good percentage ] fear him and with good reason. They know if he is elected, their time is short.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.